Stereo3D - creative boon or desperate financial ploy?
Can/Will Stereoscopic 3D reinvigorate interest in deep-focus staging and a greater utilization of the spatiality of cinema? And Is Stereoscopic 3D 'all that and a bag of chips?' Or is it doomed to die?
These were the questions recently posed on my blog by a reader posed in response to a lengthy discussion on deep-focus vs rack-focus cinema techniques and my perspective of the later being vastly over-used. The reader, Dani, speculated that Stereo3D may prompt a revisiting of less common deep-focus techniques.
My response to that first question would be a fairly resounding yes. I think the very nature of Stereoscopic 3D forces directors and DoP's to think immediately of Staging and Spatial arrangement first and foremost rather than Framing. The nature of what Stereo3D can do puts onus on arrangement in Space rather than arrangement in Frame. Stereo3D innately demands deep-focus as going ultra shallow with blur is effectively composing in 2-dimensional planes rather than deep spaces. So a DoP shooting Stereo3D with ultrafast primes with wide open apertures is totally defeating the purpose of having Stereo3D in the first place.
Now, as for the second question. It would be too easy for me to say that i generally think Stereo3D is a crock of shit that no one is really interested in and which the mass general public is, at best, ambivalent about. But I'll avoid such provocation and instead entertain a perspective on WHY parts of the film industry are so gung-ho on 3D....?
Lets face it, Hollywood studios are Terrified.
Movie theatre ticket sales are slumping. It's getting harder for the studios to convince people to leave their homes to go to the movies. The reason..? Well aside from cultural phenomenon factors I think there two more tangible elements. Home theatre systems are getting cheaper and better and so the enticement of the 'big screen' experience is just not as alluring as once was. When our home TV's were small, 4:3 with convex glass and limited colour and resolution, there was a great 'viewing quality' attractor with going to the cinema - an experience you couldnt get at home. But when you've got a 40-50" flat-screen LCD on the wall (let alone a home projector) with a multi channel surround sound system playing from BluRay in HD and a VERY COMFY couch; the movie theatre just doesn't have the pull it once did. Frankly I for one would generally rather watch a movie on my home than the theatre. I can stop whenever i like for a piss-break. I can rewind if I miss a line of dialogue and I can have my friends over and have a better communal experience.
Then we add on top of this the dreaded DownLoad culture...! Shock Horror!
Legalities aside, the much bigger problem for the studios is that they are trying to convince viewers to conform their watching to When and Where the studios say they can in a culture where the viewer otherwise has complete control over how and when they watch just about anything. 4000 years of human history and warfare has told us that people dont like being told what to do and being dictated to.
There was a shift a decade ago when studios started treating Theatrical Releases at the Movie Theatre as simply a 'marketing exercise' to drive DVD sales post theatre run. That trend still stands and indeed some big mainstream films actually draw the money to pay for theatrical release prints directly out of the marketing budget for the film. This alone tells you the brave new world we live in. A world the studios are terrified of...
And this brings us to Stereo3D. Why are the studios pushing Stereo3D so hard? Why are they talking it up? Why are they giving huge financial incentives to hardware and software companies to develop Stereo3d technologies...? Because You HAVE to go to the Movie Theatre to see it. I cant download a Stereo3D version to watch at home. I have to go to the movie theatre and buy a traditional ticket to see Stereo3D.
So the major studios are pushing hard on Stereo3D because it is a way to preserve the traditional hierarchical financial structure of the film industry. In maintains the old-school distribution pyramid that trickles down from Theatrical release, through DVD and onto Broadcast in a strict linear privilege. Rather than change the way they operate they are pushing a technology simply to reinforce the status quo they are most comfortable with.
So... I could argue that Stereo3D is a viewing experience the bulk of the world's movie goers simply dont give a flying rats arse about. Or I could argue that my experience is, as with many others, that Stereo3D is hard to watch, makes my eyes tired and sore and so will be avoided by many on physiological grounds. But, i wont argue either of these because I dont have to.
My predication is not that Stereo3D will disappear (quite the contrary, i think it will persist in various forms for some time to come) but that it will fundamentally FAIL to do what the Hollywood studios desire so desperately for it to achieve - Get people back into the movie theatres en-masse again. It will fail this overt objective through a) audience apathy and b) because it is simply a matter of time before technology advances and I can watch Stereo3D movie in my home theatre from a file I illegally downloaded (not that i would ever do that ;) Even 2 years ago i tested a prototype laptop computer that could make a Stereo3D image WITHOUT glasses; you just had to sit dead-square in front of it. It wont be long before that becomes mainstream (if people want it)
Thus I draw the conclusion that it doesn't matter how good Stereo3D is, or how great it looks, it will Fail to do what the studios desperately want it to do. And when it does, they will give up on it and desperately scurry for soemthign else to plug their sinking boat. And because I think audience desire for Stereo3D will always be fringe and marginal rather than mainstream, development of hardware and software for Stereo3D will subsequently cease or slow once the studios let it go.
As a case in point of the culture of apathy I believe exists around Stereo3D (from those outside of the big studio set at least) I can say that I teach a hundred rabidly enthusiastic, drenched in movies, gung-ho film school brats who eat breath and sleep cinema technology. Are they milling over the internet reading about Avatar and Stereo3D? Are they endlessly talking about Stereo3D between classes? Are they excitedly musing on how they would use Stereo3D when they should be working on their HDV short films? NOPE..! They just dont care.... They really dont. They talk endlessly of video games, 3D animation, CGI, RED camera, 4k, Steadicams but Stereo3D is just NOT on their mind. Some might argue that this will change once they see Avatar.... But im not so sure. This is the next generation of filmmakers, all in their 20's, and right now they just dont care about Stereo3D. And if they dont care do we really think the general public is going to care enough to leave their comfy couches...?
Posted at 11:27AM Oct 02, 2009
by Mike Jones in industry comment |
And as you are in the profession of teaching, I would urge you to get on it, or become the equivalent of an art instructor who only deals in black and white.
Funny you should mention the RED cameras. Their whole lineup can be used in stereo config right now and HAS already been used. But you know that right?
Do yourself this simple favor. Go see AVATAR on December 18. It will change your career, just as it has already for Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and Ridley Scott to name a few. It is good enough to convert these 2D icons to 3D, it should do wonders for you.
Oh and Peter Jackson is only doing stereo3D from now on. Period. Same for James Cameron. Same for Pixar. And Dreamworks Animation. And Disney Animation. ALL 3D from now on.
What do you need exactly to get you up off your rump and study what is actually happening here? Seriously. The world is no longer flat.
Posted by Jim Dorey on October 03, 2009 at 11:18 PM EST #
3D TV's are definitely going to end up on everyone's home (and laptop) eventually, there's no doubt about that. The whole logic that it's pirate-proof is flawed, but Hollywood is myopic that way (CSS, AACS...) Furthermore, the development of 3D displays will not only allow for home distribution of this content, but for the producers outside the Cameron level to work and experiment on that medium.
The best thing that stereo will bring to movie theaters might not be the 3D effect itself, but the push for universal migration to digital projection.
That'll make some things that were previously impossible quite trivial to happen. Distribution and exhibition might become a much more dynamic market, allowing for limitless overnight "prints" for, let's say last week's indie success.
Iniciatives like Paranormal Activity's "request a screening" might become common.
Not to mention film festivals.
I saw Lawrence of Arabia in a festival last year and the print came all the way from Columbia's archive with the condition that it couldn't be trimmed for projection. The audience was told this, and at the beggining and end of each reel the film was disrupted by film leader and then some blank screen waiting for the projectionist to switch reels. It was close to four hours but it was a great experience nevertheless to see such a masterpiece in pristine condition. I also got to see Nosferatu on (amazingly sharp) film (with a real piano player onstage) and it was a huge trip.
Unique opportunites.
I always get a strange anachronic itchiness watching classical cinema with digital compression artifacts on top of the old film's inherent ones, but it's so hard to enjoy these films on its proper setting.
But a few years from now, your local cinema might have a catalog of hundreds of films to see on pristine 2k or 4k DCP's that you can vote to see.
You get two hundred people to vote for a Lawrence of Arabia screening next Friday night, you can watch it at 4k, web2.0 style. A whole new way of building dynamic filmlover communities, festivals, etc might be ahead of us.
Will that make you leave your house?
Posted by Dani G on October 04, 2009 at 02:15 PM EST #
Posted by Dani G on October 04, 2009 at 02:16 PM EST #
Thanks for your thoughts Jim.
But despite how vacuous your comments are I feel compelled to make a few statements.
The first, on a macro-level - I can hardly be accused of being a traditionalist - perhaps cynical of traditional studio motives ? but hardly a conservative when it comes to the future of cinema. Read a little more of my blog and website and this will be evident. I developed the curriculum for a film school that has completely dispensed with celluloid, shoots on 2k and 4k and uses all-online RAW workflows. A Stereo3D skeptic I am but a ?old-schooler? I am very far from.
So?. Whilst I appreciate you taking the time to comment on my post I'm also disappointed you chose such a petulant tone as if I had personally offended you rather than actually addressing any of the issues I raised or responding to any of the perspectives I offered up for discussion in an intelligent and articulate manner. I?d like to think my blog post was poised to solicit informed counter arguments but for one with such conviction you seem to be seriously lacking in substance.
You seemed content to expend energy calling me a 'flat-worlder' without actually engaging with the issues I presented \ of Stereo3D in a constructive way. I find myself wondering why that is? Because you can't or don't know how and so must resort to a lowest common denominator of puerile "I'm right and your wrong" nomenclatures?
Well perhaps you'll allow me to make up for your lack intellectual rigor by countering my own arguments on your behalf?
You see you could have used my own examples against me; argued that my citing of glasses-free Stereo3D on a laptop was evidence against my position that Stereo3D is really about keeping cinema in the movie-theatre and protecting a hierarchical and traditional financial model. You could have said since 3D tech will - and indeed has - come to the desktop (and referenced to nVidia?s stereo 3D system) You could have ventured that Stereo3D for the indie filmmaker and illegal downloader is the next step. That these then negate the objectives of old-Hollywood.
Going further? You referenced 4 high profile directors but made no case as to how the role of these filmmakers counters the studio desire for maintaining their financial model? To this, you could have argued that Stereo3D is NOT studio/financial model driven (as I suggested) but rather primarily director /creativity driven. You might have extended the premise that it is not the studios pushing Stereo3D but rather the studios simply capitalizing on the creative desires of big name directors.
The logical follow on from this would be to suggest a creative 'trickle-down' effect (long an established pattern in cinema technology ? witness CGI and compositing moving from SGI workstations to laptops with a massive cost drop) In other words what the big boys, like Spielberg and Cameron, do and use today is what the indie filmmakers are doing and using (cheaper) tomorrow. What the big-boys set as a precedent, the indie and lower-budget filmmakers will make a trend.
Sadly however none of this counters the macro problem, seemingly left wholly unaddressed by those lauding the virtues of Stereo3D, which is whether audiences have any desire for Stereo3D? Whether they actually give a shit en-masse?
Now, I suggested that they don?t give a shit, but to this you might have comfortably countered with the bog-standard 'if you Build it they will come' argument. The idea that the technology generates its own desire rather than the other way around - that demand and need can be generated rather than just responded to. This would have been a point I would have found it far easy to argue for then against?
It seems you missed all these glaring opportunities?.
Some bloggers might have been offended by your little petulant child rant. But not me, im just disappointed. In theory I love the idea of the open polemic and discourse of the internet. But so often it disappoints when populated by vacuous rhetoric like yours.
You ask when I will ?get up off my rump? (evidently with an aversion to the more common term Arse or - as you Americans say - ?Ass?) and ?study what is actually happening here?? This is the most intriguing thing in your diatribe because it would seem to me that this is exactly what I?m doing ? ?studying what is going on? and providing a perspective on the impetus for Stereo3D that is outside the blinkered ?saviour of cinema? paradigm.
I certainly appreciate you taking the time Jim but next time I'd appreciate a little more thought and little less wank.
Cheers
Mike
Posted by Mike Jones on October 04, 2009 at 02:18 PM EST #
I completely agree with the point. For a long time now, for the studios its been about giving something over-and-above the home viewing experience. That explains the $200 million budget.
Yes, we do have a lot of indie content, but I'm sure you will agree, there is more of crap around, than content. So, while there are indie filmmakers, I am sure the studios will continue to flourish for a while at least.
It's so funny reading how Studios are coming to an end, coz here in India, we have just the opposites being written - how the Indian film industry is embracing the studio system and corporatization. Indian media is full of news on how we are getting more 'professional' and how big International studios are entering the Indian shores (Warner Brothers and Sony just produced a couple of movies here). On second thought, may be, these two things are related. The foreign studios are entering India, not despite of becoming less significant in the US and the rest of the world, but because of it. They desperately need to find new grounds.
Mike, Thank you for this article. trust me when I say this, I find your take on Cinema the freshest of them all. Some of the 'cinema-writers' are obsessed with 'art', some with 'technology' and yet others with 'business'. I find your writings to contain just the right mix.
There is something that I have been thinking for a while now. The biggest threat that the movie studio faced, should have been when the television came into being, isn't it? I mean, its so obvious. I am sure the television freaked them out. Scared the shit out of them. However, I have never read any article regarding this. Nobody seems to have documented it. I mean, I have read, at lengths, the old rivalry between Microsoft and Apple, and everything about their businesses in details, right to the names of the girlfriends of the founders. But have never read anything about what effect did TV had on the minds of movie-studios, business-wise, and how did they react.
I was wondering if you can shed some light on this.
Thank you once again for writing this piece.
Posted by Ankit on October 04, 2009 at 07:40 PM EST #
since the seventies. I directed a film that made nearly 400 times its production budget, and was for two weeks the top box office film in the U.S. & Canada.
For the last ten years I have been working in the digital area of stereo3d. I have done research on
the organic perceptional issues of human stereo vision.
So here's my take....3D will enjoy 10% exposure,
and generate perhaps 15% of total theatrical business into the long term future. In sat. & cable tv maybe 5% of new material. In sports it will be optional, and might draw a loyal 20%, to the 3D mode. In sexy content, like " Dancing with the Stars" maybe 30% would opt for it as a preference. In the adult industry the figures for new material, might top 40% in 3D with good technology applied there, but the huge legacy of non 3D product would still command the majority of the content.
Visual clarity, is a KEY aspect of 3D. 2K, at home 3D
will have double the appeal of 1080P HD. The internet will have hundreds of thousands of 3D
friendly sites, as a special JPG files can contain hidden (icon enabled) 3D data with only a 12% increase in file size. Point and shoot 3D still and HD cameras are in the works, so that your home "movies" can be in 3D, just as color 8mm, was popular before most Hollywood movies could offer color for anything but "blockbusters"
A big, PERMANENT.optional mode, from this point on, but NOT tuly universal, like sound or color in
movies!
Posted by Allan Silliphant on October 05, 2009 at 09:39 AM EST #
I agree whole heartedly that after some abortive development attempts over the years the clarity of today's Stereo3D will see, as you say, "A big, PERMANENT optional mode, from this point on". I think that's the biggest and best thing Stereo3D can bring to the table - not a replacement for traditional single-lens media but rather an extra colour on the palette that artists may use or not depending on the story they wish to tell.
This is where I think verbose claims such as those like "Peter Jackson is only doing stereo3D from now on. Period." Are grossly overblown and do Stereo3D no favours by presenting it as a 'replacement' rather than an addition to the cinematic toolbox.
many thanks
Mike
Posted by Mike Jones on October 05, 2009 at 07:43 PM EST #
I think about comparing it to the stereo revolution that happened in sound during 60s and 70s. First, there were awful XY recordings (see The Beatles or Tom Jones "It's Not Unusual"). But after some time consuming research, sound engineers managed to develop techniques that let them use stereo in much more appealing and less annoying ways. Mostly thanks to the market - more stereo sets in houses meant that pushing another limit (in MS mixing) won't go unnoticed. And there were also tons of articles saying how annoying stereo is - that you have to sit rock-still in front of it to get most of it. Now look how it got adopted, you don't care really if you sit more to the left or more to the right. If the station that you listen to in your car (unbalanced) goes MONO, you suddenly notice how flat and claustrophobic is the monaural sound.
Today's 3D cinematography is still in development. There is (and I've seen it on the set) a constant fight between old skool cinematographers trying to adopt old techniques, and people who try to start from scratch (http://www.zbigvision.com/conceptonebox.html). The first way generates results that are too unreal - taking a picture of a town using 1m distance between L and R shots gives a beautiful 3D image, but watching it gets you headache. The second one still seems to be too revolutionary to be useful in cinematography. And still nobody knows yet how to properly preview the shots on the set, and what to expect of them.
I do believe that the 3D hype will be much stronger than HD. As the HD shift was simply necessary and unavoidable, 3D will be a total revolution, affordable for indie filmmaker, pushing 2D into art niche. We just have to wait some time until the whole thing adopts - cameras, displays and of course the audience.
Posted by 403 on October 12, 2009 at 11:56 AM EST #